This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• This is a court order from the U.S. District Court in San Angelo, Texas, about a lawsuit filed by Silencer Shop Foundation and others against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and others.
• The judge is ruling on a request to drop lawyer Stephen D. Stamboulieh as attorney for three plaintiffs: Gun Owners of America, Inc.; Gun Owners Foundation; and Brady Wetz.
• The court granted the request, so Stamboulieh is no longer the attorney for those three plaintiffs in this case.
• The three plaintiffs are still represented by other lawyers (co-counsel) in the case.

• A lawyer is telling the court that he will represent the plaintiffs in this case. In plain words: he’s entering his appearance to act as their lawyer.

• The lawyer is Oliver M. Krawczyk from Ambler Law Offices. He will represent these plaintiffs: Gun Owners of America, Inc.; Gun Owners Foundation; and Brady Wetz.

• The filing is dated August 12, 2026.

• The court case is listed as 6:25-cv-56-H in the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division. The defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and others.

• There is a note saying a copy of this notice was filed electronically and sent to all other lawyers in the case through the court’s electronic filing system.

• Who won and what happened: The plaintiffs, including Silencer Shop Foundation, won part of their case against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and related defendants. The court found in their favor on certain legal claims about how the government can regulate “untaxed firearms.” The plaintiffs’ rights under the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) were not decided in their favor and are considered abandoned for now.

• What the court did: The court issued a permanent injunction. This means the government agencies and certain people in official positions cannot enforce specific parts of the National Firearms Act (NFA) that the court previously found problematic, as they apply to the plaintiffs and, where relevant, the plaintiffs’ groups and customers.

- Which rules are blocked (in plain terms): The following parts of the law cannot be used to regulate untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs: - 26 U.S.C. sections 5812(a)-(b), 5822, 5841(a)-(c), (e), 5861(b)-(f); - 27 C.F.R. sections 479.62(a)-(d) and 479.84(a)-(d). These are specific provisions of the federal rules about firearms and how they must be regulated.

• Additional protection for another group (the Jensen plaintiffs): The court also permanently blocks enforcement of two more provisions (26 U.S.C. sections 5842(b) and 5861(i)) as to untaxed firearms for the Jensen plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers.

• What is not affected: The injunction does not cover how the law regulates “any other weapon” for the Jensen plaintiffs.

• Other details: All other requests for relief not specifically granted are denied. The ruling will take effect in seven days to allow an appeal if desired. The court clerk is told to close the case. Judge: James Wesley Hendrix. Date: August 5, 2026.

• What happened: A US district court decided that the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) regulatory rules for certain firearms are unconstitutional as to those firearms that no longer have transfer or making taxes, after Congress removed those taxes in 2025.

• Key facts: The NFA used to tax transfers and makes of certain firearms and included strict rules to help collect those taxes. In 2025, a new law called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act removed those taxes for four categories (short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and “any other weapon” or AOW). The court found the regulatory rules for those untaxed firearms can’t be supported by the Taxing Clause anymore, since there’s no revenue being raised from them.

• What the court ruled about powers: The court said those NFA rules can’t be saved by using Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce (because Congress didn’t rely on that power when enacting the NFA) and can’t be saved by the Necessary and Proper Clause (which allows laws that are needed to execute a power, but not laws that go beyond constitutional limits). In short, Congress didn’t invoke the right powers to keep these regulations in force after the taxes were zeroed out.

• Second Amendment claims: The court did not decide the gun-rights issue (the Second Amendment) because the regulatory rules aren’t justified by tax power anymore; the plaintiffs gave up those arguments for this ruling.

• Remedy (what the court will do): The court granted a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the challenged NFA rules against the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers for untaxed firearms. The court said it cannot issue a universal injunction that helps people not before the court, and it did not issue broad declaratory judgments.

• Who’s involved: Plaintiffs include Silencer Shop Foundation, Brady Wetz (an individual), several gun-owners groups, and some states. Defendants are the U.S. Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and ATF (the federal agency that enforces the NFA).

• Bottom line: The court ruled that, since the taxes for many NFA firearms were removed, the old regulatory provisions for those untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s constitutional powers and must be stopped for the parties in this case. The fix, if any, would have to come from Congress, not the court.

• A judge decided a request from outside groups (friends of the court) in a gun case. The groups are the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Amici curiae” means these groups are not suing or being sued, but they can share information to help the court decide the case.
• The request was to remove Matthew Olsen as their lawyer. The judge granted (approved) that request.
• This means Matthew Olsen is no longer the lawyer for those groups in this case.
• The groups are still represented by other lawyers who have started representing them in court.
• Date of the order: August 5, 2026. Judge: James Wesley Hendrix.

• The groups called “Amici Curiae” (these are gun-safety groups who are not suing but are allowed to give input to the court) want to let attorney Matthew Olsen stop representing them in this case. They are asking the judge to allow Olsen to withdraw.

• Olsen is leaving the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, so he will no longer be allowed to represent the Amici Curiae in this matter. Other lawyers from that same firm and from The Sloan Firm will continue to represent them.

• The groups say they have told Olsen’s client (the Amici) about the withdrawal, and they claim no party in the case will be harmed or affected by this change. The filing also shows the case numbers and the filing date (August 4, 2026).

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

Here’s what happened in plain English:

• The plaintiffs (Silencer Shop Foundation and team) asked for permission to add extra legal sources to their case file. They did this without any opponents objecting (they didn’t oppose the request).
• The court granted their request. This means the extra materials can be added to the case.
• The clerk must file the plaintiffs’ notice and the extra authorities (the extra legal sources) as a separate entry in the case file.
• The defendants are allowed to respond to these new materials, but they must do so by July 10, 2026.
• The judge is James Wesley Hendrix, and this order was issued July 8, 2026.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• A judge decided who will represent the friend-of-the-court groups in this case. The judge granted a request to remove Samuel P. Siegel as their lawyer.
• The friend-of-the-court groups affected are the City of Baltimore, the City of Columbus, and Harris County.
• Samuel P. Siegel is no longer their lawyer in this case. He is relieved of his duties to represent them in this court.
• Even though Siegel is removed, the friend-of-the-court groups are still represented by other lawyers who have already started working for them.
• The order was signed on July 1, 2026, by Judge James S. Hendrix.

• Stephen Albro, an ATF official and Chief of the National Firearms Act (NFA) Division, writes that this document is his personal statement for the court about how the NFA works and how ATF enforces tax and registration rules for NFA firearms.

• Plain language about the rules: If someone wants to manufacture or make an NFA firearm, they must first get approval from the Attorney General. The NFA also requires a special tax (the “special occupational tax,” or SOT) for each place of business, with $1,000 per year for importers and manufacturers, and $500 for dealers. Paying the SOT lets licensees lawfully engage in NFA firearm business and allows tax-free registration and transfer among qualified licensees.

• What ATF does: The NFA Division reviews every application to make or transfer NFA firearms. They check the registration record to avoid duplicate entries, verify information on transfers, and confirm whether the transfer is tax-paid or tax-exempt. They only approve applications after confirming the tax payment and the licensee details are correct and active.

• Evidence of enforcement: The filing says ATF often denies applications when SOT payments aren’t properly made. In 2025, ATF denied 691 applications for SOT issues. They also calculate penalties and interest for late SOT payments and will refer delinquent accounts to field offices.

• Bottom line: ATF uses information from these applications to enforce tax rules on NFA firearms. The author argues that the NFA Division actively enforces SOT requirements and takes various actions when payments are late or missing.

• Date: This statement was executed by Stephen Albro on February 11, 2026.

• Two related court cases were combined into one: Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. [the other case].
• The people who went to court (the defendants) asked for permission to add more evidence to their side of the case. They want to file a four-page statement from the head of the ATF’s National Firearms Act Division.
• The judge had already allowed a very similar statement in the Silencer Shop case.
• The judge says yes to letting the Jensen side file that extra evidence, and also lets the Jensen side file a short reply brief (no more than three pages) by July 7, 2026.
• The clerk must add the new four-page ATF statement to the court’s official file as a separate document.

This document is not yet available on PACER.